APHC010451202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8962 OF 2025 Between: 1. Gunthurthi Roji, @ Rosy (A1), W/o Maheswara Rao, Aged about 38 Years, R/o 35-34/5, Balaji Pet, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavri District, 2. Gunthurthi Ravi, @ Ravi (A3), S/o Mahesh, Aged about 20 years, R/o 35-34/5, Balaji Pet, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavri District ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 3 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by S.H.O. Rajahmundry III town PS, Through Public Prosecutor, Amaravati High Court of Andhra Pradesh At ...RESPONDENT Petition under Section 482 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Police to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 & 3 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 368 of 2025 of Rajahmundry III town PS. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI M.DHANA RAJU, ADVOCATE Counsel for the Respondent : THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. r The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010451202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) If [3521] a i WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8962/2025 Between: 1.GUNTHURTHI ROJI, @ ROSY fA1), W/0 MAHESWARA RAO, AGED R/0 35-34/5, BALAJI PET, ABOUT 38 YEARS RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVRI DISTRICT, 2.GUNTHURTHI RAVI, @ RAVI (A3), S/0 MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/0 35-34/5, BALAJI PET, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVRI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep.by S.H.O. Rajahmundry III town PS, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): M DHANA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLh Crl.P.No.8962 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 3 for granting of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.368 of 2025 of Rajahmundry III Town Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Section 318 (4) read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.08.2025 at Shram Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, a complaint was lodged at 1:10 PM. The complainant alleged that accused Rosy @ Divya, her husband Gurtirthi Mahesh, her son Ravi @ Vijay, and their associates fraudulently obtained approximately Rs. 2,40,00,000/- from him between 2021 and 2025 under the pretext of employment and various emergencies. The accused, using multiple phone numbers and false identities, repeatedly contacted the complainant, sought money, and threatened to tarnish his reputation to extort further amounts. The complainant provided details of bank/UPI transactions, names, and phone numbers involved, and later discovered that the accused used the cheated amounts to purchase 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.8962 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 houses, plots, vehicles, and gold. Consequently, FIR was lodged against the petitioners. 3. Mr. Mallipudi Dhanaraju, the learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners are the sole earning members of the family and, therefore, their incarceration would cause undue hardship to their dependents. The petitioners undertake to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice. Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public 4. Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, submitting that the investigation is still underway and several material witnesses remain to be examined. It is contended that if the petitioners are released on pre-arrest bail, there is a strong likelihood that they may abscond, thereby hampering the ongoing investigation and evading the process of law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is urged that the petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned 5. Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4 Dr. YLk Grip.No.8962 of202b Dated 17.09.2025 6. As seen from the record, the alleged offence leveled against the petitioners is punishable with imprisonment for less than seven (07) years. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar\ wherein a detailed guidelines were issued at Para Nos. 11 and 12, for arresting a person, which are being reproduced herein below;- 7. 11.Our endeavor in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction: a).All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.j; b)AII police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii); c) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention; d) The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention; e) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the Institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing; f) Notice of appearance In terms of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of (2014) 8 see 273 5 Dr. YLR, J CrI.P.N0.8962 of 2025 Dated 17.09.2025 & institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing; g) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, he shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction, h) Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court. 12. 12. We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case In hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine. 8. The similar view is also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam v. the State of Jharkhand^, which also reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar. 9. In the light of the law laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar and Md. Asfak Alam, the investigating officer is under legal obligation to proceed in accordance with law. but he shall follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 41 and 41(A) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ (now Sections 35 and 35(3) of ‘the B.N.S.S.,’ 2023). The petitioners are obliged to render their fullest cooperation in the ongoing investigation. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 35(3) of ‘the BNS741-A of (2023) 8 see 632 6 Dr. YLhs_ CriP.No.8962 of2025 Dated 17.09.2025 the Cr.P.C.,’ and to strictly follow the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar and MD. Asfak Alam. SDI- K.SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Mobile Court, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2. The Station House Officer, Rajahmundry III Town Police Station, East Godavari District. 3. One CC to Sri M.Dhana Raju, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies GPC TAC HIGH COURT DATED; 17/09/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 8962 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THIS CRIMINAL PETITION